- From: <lguarino@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 05:53:17 -0800
- To: Roberto Castaldo <r.castaldo@iol.it>
- Cc: "'John M Slatin'" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, "'Gregg Vanderheiden'" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "'Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)'" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>, ij@w3.org, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org, jbrewer@w3.org
> Roberto Castaldo: > That's one of the main points against the alternative web sites; > the content source must be one and unique, the resultant > web pages (or sites in this case) may be multiple using CSS > or XSLT; all others solutions should be explicitally > forbidden because they cannot ensure that the "main" > page and the "alternative" ones have the same content > and functionality. Are we really proposing modifications to WCAG 1.0 at this point? Forbidding other solutions seems like we are narrowing the original guideline. Or are we arguing that WCAG2 should take a narrower stance? Although it may be easier to ensure equivalence using CSS or XSLT on the same underlying content, there is neither a guarantee that the transformation really is equivalent, nor can we claim that other approaches won't produce equivalent pages. Loretta
Received on Tuesday, 7 September 2004 13:53:42 UTC